Gay Marriage

Judge Strikes Down Oregon Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Recognition


Not even same-sex couples are immune to awkward height differentials when dancing.
Credit: CarbonNYC / photo on flickr

You'd think a state with a progressive reputation like Oregon would be all about the gay marriage train, but that's not the case. Actually, some counties within the state did start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004, but then a ballot initiative passed prohibiting same-sex marriage recognition in the state.

But another federal judge's ruling today has, rather predictably at this point, struck down Oregon's ban. Furthermore, government officials in Oregon are not going to appeal the judge's rulings, and the judge rejected an effort by the National Organization for Marriage to intervene to protect the law, meaning the battle's apparently over in Oregon. The order is effective immediately.

Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed notes that this is the 12th ruling against gay marriage bans since the Supreme Court last year struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that allowed the federal government to refuse to recognize same-sex unions in states where they had been legalized. He also posted the ruling here.

Following up on other recent gay marriage news: In Arkansas, the state's Supreme Court has instituted a stay on gay marriages there pending the state's appeal. A judge struck down the state's ban on May 9 and did not issue a stay. As a result, there have been several hundred licenses handed out to same-sex couples in Arkansas. That all ended on Friday (following some additional complications over a separate law that forbid clerks from handing out same-sex marriage licenses. The judge struck that law down, too).

And in Utah, where the state is also appealing a federal judge striking down their marriage ban, the state has ordered a halt on issuing birth certificates for same-sex parent adoptions. The state's attorney general contends that recognizing same-sex adoptions should also be put on hold and the state should not recognize same-sex partners as legal parents while the state appeals the marriage decision.

NEXT: The Deadhead Who Got Life for Mailing LSD—and Five Other Leading Candidates for Clemency

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Now let’s have an abortion-rights article and one on immigration for the trifecta!

  2. Actually, some counties within the state did start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004, but then a ballot initiative passed prohibiting same-sex marriage recognition in the state.

    Like most every other state, Oregon isn’t a solid blue or red?

    1. Actually Oregon is more of a chartreuse. You’d know that if you ever bothered to go there.

      (don’t go to Eugene)

    2. I think that like most every other state Oregon is urban vs rural as much as anything else. Here in Portland it’s progtopia. Head over the hills to the east it’s like another state.

  3. I miss the “legalize same-sex marriage recognition” wording.

    1. The wording on this stuff has always been odd – it’s wierd that these are referred to as “bans” because they are not banning citizens’ activity, they laws defining government benfits/mandates.

      It would be like referring to a law that tightens the qualification characteristics for medicaid as a “medicaid ban”

  4. Also isn’t “same-sex” discriminatory to the trannies? Reason should stop this cisprivilege!

    1. same sex different day

  5. Do the (usually) left-wingers who shout for democracy ever make any noise over anti-democratic measures such as this, or is it only when they don’t agree with the judges?

    1. Lefties only like democracy in the abstract where they imagine “the people” all agree with them.

    2. Democracy is only democracy when it achieves in the right policy outcomes. Otherwise it’s evil special interests hijacking the will of the people.

      1. Of course, of course, but there has to be one principled one who says “that sucks, but it’s the law – we’ll get ’em next election”… somewhere.

    3. Both sides tend to forgive the legal means if the ends are achieved. Liberals are not quite the hypocrites on judicial activism as conservatives, who baah the loudest about it. Liberals tend to embrace an active court as long as it acts in the interest of minority protections.

  6. That alt-text is stretching the point.

  7. This stinks . They could had ran the petition to overturn gay marriage ban instead they turn to ta dictatorship of judges. The ruling leave open violation of the First amendment establishment clause because it doesn’t protect churches to say not in out churches. We already know The State of Oregon belief in right of business. This is regulation without representation.

    1. Churches can’t compel other churches to believe what they want them to. Your snake venom chugging congregation of the Batshits of Appalachia will still be able to marry the heterosexual cousins it always has.

  8. Windsor was such a great victory against federal interference in issues best left to the states.

  9. What always gets me is how many deep blue states have required judicial fiat to get past the will of the people when it comes to gay marriage.

    It’s almost as if, despite the endless media drumbeat, the position isn’t popular with a majority of the people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.